Chairman and Managing Director, Allahabad Bank and Others vs Suresh Chandra Sharma and Another

With the consent of the parties, we have heard the appeal on merits.

The respondentsappellants aggrieved by a portion of the order dated 22.4.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28581 of 1997 (Suresh Chandra Sharma and another v. Chairman and Managing Director, Allahabad Bank and others) have preferred this appeal Under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules.

Short facts, giving rise to the present appeal are that the petitionerrespondent No. 1Suresh Chandra Sharma is an employee of the Allahabad Bank. He filed an application dated 11.1.1996 seeking voluntary retirement. His prayer for voluntary retirement was accepted by order dated 30.6.1996. On the same day, when he filed an application seeking voluntary retirement, another application was filed seeking appointment of his son Ajai Kumar Sharma on compassionate ground. The scheme of the Allahabad Bank provides that, interalia, the dependent of an employee, who retired on medical ground before attaining the age of 55 years, will be considered for appointment on request in writing. The grievance of the writ petitionersrespondents is that the application seeking compassionate appointment was filed on 11.1.1996 but till date no decision has been taken and petitionerrespondent No. 2 has not been granted appointment. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order directed for disposal of the representation but while doing so put a rider that while deciding the representation, the claim of the petitionerrespondent No. 2 for compassionate appointment shall not be rejected on the ground that the petitionerrespondent No. 1 had crossed the age of 55 years. It is the said portion of the order, which has been impugned in the present appeal.

Mr. Himanshu Tiwari appearing on behalf of the respondentsappellants submits that on the date when petitionerrespondent No. 1 filed application for appointment of petitionerrespondent No. 2, petitionerrespondent No. 1 had not retired from service. Further the petitionerrespondent No. 1 retired from service on 30.6.1996 and admittedly on the said date he had crossed the age of 55 years and in that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has erred in directing that while deciding the representation, the fact that petitionerrespondent No. 1 has crossed the age of 55 years, shall not be taken into account.

Mr. S.K. Srivastava appearing on behalf of the petitionersrespondents, however, submits that as the petitionerrespondent No. 1 had filed an application before the respondentsappellants after attaining the age of 55 years, delay on part of the respondentsappellants in accepting voluntary retirement on 30.6.1996 shall not cause any prejudice to the petitionersrespondents.

Having appreciated the rival submissions of Mr. Tiwari and Mr. Srivastava, the fact of the matter is that the prayer of petitionerrespondent No. 1 for voluntary retirement was accepted on 30.6.1996 and admittedly on that day he had crossed the age of 55 years. When he had crossed the age of 55 years on 30.6.1996 for the purposes of consideration of the prayer for appointment on compassionate ground, it cannot be said that he had not crossed the age of 55 years. The same finds support from the Rules itself, which provide that an employee retired on medical ground before attaining the age of 55 years shall be given benefit of compassionate appointment. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has erred in directing for consideration of the representation for appointment on compassionate ground treating that the petitionerrespondent No. 1 has retired even before attaining the age of 55 years. In that view of the matter, the aforesaid directions of the learned Single Judge cannot be allowed to stand.

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent that the representation of the petitioner shall be considered without any rider and the following part of the order of the learned Single Judge:

"It is being made clear that the respondent No. 2 while deciding the petitioners'' representation shall not reject the claim of the petitioner No. 2 for compassionate appointment on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 has crossed the age of 55 years as admittedly the date on which the petitioner No. 1 had sought voluntary retirement and claimed compassionate appointment for the petitioner No. 2, he was less than 55 years of age as required by Clause 8 of the Scheme." stands deleted.

The appeal stands allowed to the said extent. No order as to cost.